



^o 






i9 v*, • • AP^ 



b 



O V 

/ -Y' \.^" .':^'-. \/ .•^'. \,^^ :) 

■ X ^°.:^^-> .^**.-^<.\ /.c:«;^-"-°o 




-o .^' 



^*„ .-^^ ,*J 


























'-^ 
-^^ 






^' ^<^ 



<>^. 









TENNESSEE HISTORICAL SOCIETY PAPERS. 
is 

HISTORY 



SOUTH CAROLINA CESSION 



NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF TENNESSEE 



!J- 



BY W. R. QARRETT, /<.fA. 



Nashville, Tenn.: 
SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE. 

1884. 



Soutl] hm\m (Session, 

Eead Before the Tennessee Historical Society, November 8, 1881. 



THERE are some events of history which possess but little historic 
importance, but for this very reason are invested with peculiar 
historic interest. 

Such incidents, either from the brief period of their existence, or 
from their failure to produce any marked results upon the general 
interests of communities, are soon lost to view amid the great and 
pregnant events which stand out as the landmarks of a nation's his- 
tory. When in after years these lesser facts are recalled to our notice 
by the researches of the historian or the antiquarian, they strike us with 
surprise, and possess all the charms of novelty. 

To this class belongs the history of the narrow strip of land touching 
the southern boundary of North Carolina and Tennessee, and extend- 
ing from South Carolina to the Mississippi River. This strip is about 
12 miles wide and more than 400 miles long, and was ceded by South 
Carolina to the United States on the 9th day of August, 1787. 

The inquirer, whose attention has never before been especially drawn 
to the subject, is surprised to find that immediately touching the south- 
ern border of our State South Carolina should ever have owned a ter- 
ritory of such eccentric dimensions and so peculiarly located. The 
circumstances connected with its cession to the United States recall a 
train of interesting associations dating from the settlement of the South- 
ern States to the years 1802 and 1804, when this strip was finally di- 
vided between Georgia and Mississippi territory, each receiving the 
portion immediately north of its own limits. 

To understand clearly the causes which led to the possession by South 
Carolina and the cession to the United States of this singular territory, 
it is necessary to glance briefly at that period of our history when 
the thirteen States, after the surrender of Yorktown and the treaty 
o Paris, having secured their independence, were engaged in construct- 
ing a general government. One of the questions of the day most dif- 
ficult of solution was the government of their western territory. 



4 South Carolina Cession. 

The troubles* of North Carolina in controlling her froward and pre- 
cocious daughter, Tennessee, are familiar to us all. Similar difficulties 
were experienced by all the other States owning western territory. 
These difficulties wore caused partly by the natural barriers of remote- 
ness, inaccessibility, imperfect communications, and divergent interests; 
and partly by the independent and intractable character of the western 
settlers, who were restive under any restraints which appeared to be im- 
posed by people at a distance. Domestic troubles, however, were by no 
means the only ones. There was a strong pressure from without, and 
especially from the New England and Middle States, to induce the great 
States of Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas to surrender their west- 
ern territory. A glance at the map will show the grounds of their jeal- 
ousy in entering into a union with these four States, who then owned 
more than three-fourths of all the territory ceded by Great Britain in 
the treaty of Paris. 

According to Mr. Anderson's History of the United States, only six 
States, previous to 1781, had exactly defined boundaries — viz., New 
Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and 
Delaware. The disputed claims to western territory, and their final 
adjustment, are all that is now important to consider. These claims, 
as is well known, were finally ceded to the United States by all claim- 
ants. 

How different might have been the fate of America, whether for bet- 
ter or for worse, had the four great States held to their western lands 
with the tenacity usually shown by powerful communities! Virginia 
might now be extending from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, and from 
North Carolina to the lakes, embracing an area and numbering a pop- 
ulation far overshadowing her sister States, truly the Old Dominion, in- 
stead of being shrunken up, as she now is, between the Alleghanies and 
the ocean, shorn of her lands, and fallen from the first to the tenth State 
of the Union. The Carolinas and Georgia might now be .stretching 
from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, powerful in lands, population, and 
resources. Such might have been their fate had these States pursued 
a selfish policy. Such was the fear of the other nine States, who urged 
the western cessions, and who looked with just alarm upon a union 
with neighbors who might in a few years acquire, by the settlement of 
their western lands, such overpowering influence. Whether such un- 
wieldy States could have held together, whether the same wonderful 
growth and the same healthy development could have been attained by 
the West under the management of the parent States, it is now idle to 
intpiire. 



South Carolina Cession. 5 

Let us trace briefly the pressure of public opinion, the political arti- 
fices, and the domestic difficulties which finally impelled the four great 
States to the voluntary surrender of the largest tract of land ever alien- 
ated in the history of the world by powerful communities without blood- 
shed. 

The first public movement in this direction was made in Congress iu 
1777, in the debates and preliminaries to the adoption of the Articles 
of Confederation. This contest was for the time ended by the refusal 
of Virginia to cede her westei-n lands, and the refusal of Maryland to 
enter the confederation without it. Virginia claimed all of the vast 
territory north-west of the Ohio River, from her charter, from actual 
possession, and from the fact that the British were expelled from it by 
the expedition under George Rogers Clarke, entirely composed of Vir- 
ginia troops, and under Virginia authority, and after the refusal or fail- 
ure of the United States to assist. It will be remembered that the Par- 
liament of Great Britain had, iu the beginning of the contest with her 
colonies, passed an act annexing all the territory north-west of the Ohio 
River to Canada. The expedition of George Rogers Clarke prevented 
the policy of Great Britain from being successful in limiting the terri- 
tory of the United States to the Ohio River. The claim of Virginia, 
however, was not undisputed. Massachusetts and Connecticut claimed 
that their original charter extended across the belt of this territory, re- 
spectively within the latitude of their northern and southern bounda- 
ries; and that although they had never exercised any jurisdiction, their 
rights had not been extinguished by the grants of the Crown which de- 
prived them of the intervening country. New York also claimed from 
the lakes to the Cumberland Mountains, under certain alleged grants 
from the Indians. It is evident that these claims of New York were 
urged for the sole purpose of using them as a lever to compel the other 
States to abandon their claims to the north-western territory. It is 
probable, moreover, that Massachusetts and Connecticut entertained no 
serious thought of acquiring possession of any portiou of this territory, 
but used their claims as a lever to effect a cession from Virginia, the 
Carolinas, and Georgia, and for other political purposes. Hildreth, 
who cannot be accused of partiality to Virginia, says, in this connec- 
tion : " New York, whose claim was the vaguest and most shadowy, led 
the way by giving a discretionary power to her delegates in Congress 
to cede that portiou of her claims west of a line drawn through the 
westernmost extremity of Lake Ontario." This was in February, 
1780, when the second effort was made to force a cession from the 
claimant States. Connecticut offered to cede her claims in October 



6 South Carolina Cession. 

of the same year, retaining that portion since known as the Connecticut 
Reserve. The Virginia Legislature, on Dec. 30, 1780, made a cession 
of all claims north-west of the Ohio, but requiring as a condition a 
guarantee from the United States to the possession of Kentucky. The 
delegates from New York, who had been vested with discretionary 
power, made a deed on March 1, 1781, and on the same day the dele- 
gates of Maryland, who were authorized to do so, ratified the articles 
of confederation, and the union of the States was begun. 

This cession of Virginia, the only State who resigned any territory 
really occupied, and whose claims were undisputed, as far north as the 
foi'ty-first parallel, except by the shadowy claim of New York, is at- 
tributed by Hildreth to the terror of invasion upon the approach of Ar- 
nold. Bancroft alludes to this cession in the following words: "Vir- 
ginia did more, avowing her regard for a federal union, and preferring 
the general good to every object of smaller importance, she resolved to 
yield her title to the lands north-west of the Ohio, on condition that 
they should be formed into distinct republican States, and admitted 
members of the Union ; and Jefferson, who from the first had pledged 
himself to the measure, announced to Congress this great act of his ad- 
ministration in a letter full of hope for the completion of the American 
Union, and the establishment of free republics in the vast country to 
which Virginia quitted her claim." 

Although these cessions had produced the effect of allaying the jeal- 
ousy of Maryland, and thus completing the confederation, yet the west- 
ern lauds continued for many years to be a source of disquietude and 
contention. The following extract from Hildreth presents the condition 
of afiiiirs in 1782 : " With the increasing power of the treasury, the west- 
ern lands were earnestly looked to as a financial resource. Unwilling- 
ness to guarantee to Virginia the possession of Kentucky, and the influ- 
ence of certain land companies, not without their weight in Congress, 
on whose behalf a claim was set up to large tracts "west of the mount- 
ains," had hitherto prevented the acceptance of the Virginia cession. 
A committee, the appointment of which the delegates from Virginia 
vainly opposed, having gone into a full examination of all the claims 
to western lands, whether on the part of States, companies, or indi- 
viduals, had made a report upholding the title of New York against 
all claimants. That report gave rise to many warm debates, which re- 
sulted, however, at the close of the cession in the formal acceptance of 
the deed of New York conveying all her title to Congress — an accept- 
ance intended to compel the other States to make satisfactory cessions. 
Massachusetts and Virginia voted against it ; the Carolinas were divided ; 



South Carolina Cession. 7 

all the other States in the affirmative." Thus matters remained until 
after the close of the war. 

After the disbandment of the army, Congress was very thinly at- 
tended. The first business of importance was the acceptance of the 
cession of Virginia, March, 1784, that State having modified its ces- 
sion by the omission of the guarantee of Kentucky, and conditioned it 
with a reservation of the title to land to be sold to repay the soldiers 
engaged in the expedition of George Rogers Clarke in the conquest of 
the north-western territory. 

"Simultaneously with this acceptance," Jefferson submitted his fa- 
mous plan for the subdivision and government of the north-west terri- 
tory, and such other western territory as might be obtained by cessions 
expected from the other States. The adoption of this report and the- 
subsequent acts of Congress show that the main cause of jealousy was 
removed, and the title of the United States to the north-west territory 
was considered substantially assured by this cession of Virginia and 
its acceptance. As yet, however, the cession of Connecticut had not 
been accepted, and Massachusetts was sleeping on her claim. 

An irresistible public opinion was now brought to bear upon theses 
States and upon the claimants of the territory south of the Ohio River^ 
North Carolina vacillated, her Legislature passing an act in June, 1784,. 
to cede Tennessee, and repealing the same in November, before Con- 
gress could accept it. In March, 1785, Massachusetts authorized her 
delegates to cede her claims, and her cession was accepted on April 19,. 
the anniversary of Lexington. This cession v/as free from reservations 
or conditions of a selfish character, and bore on its face the evidence of 
its patriotic purpose. On Sept. 11, 1786, Congress, in order to com- 
plete the title of the United States to the north-west territoiy, accepted 
the cession of Connecticut, notwithstanding the sinister reservation by 
which that shrewd State sought to convert the nominal surrender of her 
abstract claims into a real establishment of possession of proprietary 
title. Ceding all claims to jurisdiction, she reserved the proprietary 
title to the large tract of land known as the "Connecticut Reserve," 
the proceeds from the sale of which went into the treasury of the State,, 
and now constitutes a large portion of her magnificent school fund, thus, 
rewarding her own patriotism with a pecuniary compensation. 

The title to the north-western territory being now freed from all 
claimants, the pressure was directed against the Carolinas and Georgia. 
It is not surprising that Georgia should cling to her western territory 
with more tenacity and yield it with more feluctance than any of her 
sister States. Separated from it by no mountain barriers, and lying; 



S . South Carolina Cession. 

in immediate contact, her western possessions seemed more a part of 
herself', and no adverse interests urged her western settlers to demand a 
separation. Besides all this, a new complication had now arisen, which 
disposed the southern claimants of western territory to look with less 
favor upon a cession of their claims to the United States. This was 
the spirit manifested by the Northern States to concede to the claims 
of Spain the temporary control of the Mississippi River as high as 
Natchez, which was then occupied by Spanish troops. In August? 
1786, panting for the revival of trade on any terms, seven Northern 
States, by their delegates in Congress, approved a plan submitted by 
Jay to yield to the claims of Spain temporary control of the Mississippi 
River, and the possession of the disputed territory. The five Southern 
States violently opposed it, and it was only defeated by lacking the con- 
stitutional majority of nine States. Georgia especially resented this dis- 
position to abandon her territory to Spain, and refused to listen to any 
proposition to cede her territory to the United States. 

These events occurring in 1785, and the sectional spirit which they 
aroused, put an end for the time to any cessions of south-western terri- 
tory. In 1787, after the excitement and sectional jealousy had been 
somewhat allayed, although the affairs with Spain were still unsettled, 
the pressure upon North Carolina and Georgia was revived by the first 
cession of any south-western territory to the United States. This was 
the cession by South Carolina of the strip of land which forms the sub- 
ject of this paper. As far as we can judge of the motives of men, when 
left to find them with no guide but their acts, it would seem that South 
Carolina desired to bring to bear on North Carolina and Georgia the 
same pressure which New York had so successfully exercised on Vir- 
ginia, with this difference, however, that South Carolina ceded valid, 
though useless, claims, while New York enjoyed the doubtful honor of 
attempting to give away what did not belong to her. There may have 
been also some feeliug of pique against Georgia in the action of the 
Hotspur State, caused by the suit then pending between the two States. 
The following are the circumstances of the cession — and I will here 
acknowledge my indebtedness to the courtesy of Mr. Chas. Warren, 
Acting Commissioner of Education, and to Mr. Spofford, Librarian of 
Congress, for supplying me with extracts from the records of the Con- 
gress of the Confederation, furnishing information that can be found in 
no work on United States History with which I am acquainted. I pre- 
sent these extracts to the Society in behalf of Mr. Warren, and being too 
voluminous to read in full, although very interesting, I give a synopsis 
of their contents, accompanied by such reflections as the subject suggests. 



South Carolina Cession. 9 

In the year 1785 South Carolina instituted suit against Georgia, be- 
fore Congress, under the ninth article of the confederation. On June 
1 of this year Georgia was summoned to appear on the second Monday 
of May, 1786. 

The following is a portion of the petition of South Carolina: 

"To the United States of America in Congress assembled : The petition 
of the Legislature of South Carolina sheweth that a dispute and differ- 
ence hath arisen and subsists between the State of Georgia and this 
State concerning boundaries. That the case and claim of this State is 
as follows, viz. : 

"Charles II., King of Great Britain, by charter, dated the 24th 
March, in the fifteenth year of his reign, granted, etc. ... That 
■on the 30th day of June, in the seventeenth year of his reign, the said 
king granted to the said Lords Proprietors a second charter, enlarging 
the bounds of Carolina, etc That Carolina was afterward di- 
vided into two provinces called North and South Carolina. That by 
a charter dated the 9th day of June, 1732, George II., King of Great 
Britain, granted to certain persons therein named all the lands lying- 
between the rivers Savannah and Altamaha, and lines to be drawn 
from the heads of those rivers respectively to the South Seas, and styled 

the said colony Georgia ThatSouthCarolinaclaims the lands 

lying between the North Carolina line and a line to be run due west 
from the mouth of the Tugaloo River to the Mississippi, because, as the 
State contends, the River Savannah loses that name at the confluence 
of Tugaloo and Keowee rivers, consequently that spot is the head of 
Savannah River; the State of Georgia, on the other hand, contends 
that the source of Keowee is to be considered at the head of Savannah 
River." 

The petition recites other disputed points of boundary, and con- 
cludes with a prayer to Congress to take jurisdiction and try the case 
under the Articles of Confederation. 

The case was adjourned from time to time, until Sept. 4, 1786, when 
both States appeared by their agents. Proceedings were then instituted, 
and a court appointed to try the case, which was to sit in New York. 
No judgment was ever rendered by this court in consequence of the 
compromise of the suit between the parties. Both States appointed 
Commissioners, who met at Beaufort, S. C, clothed with full powers to 
make a final settlement. And now comes a singular part of the his- 
tory and the origin of the twelve-mile strip. These Commissioners — 
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Andrew Pickens, and Pierce Butler, on 
the pai't of South Carolina; and John Habersham, Lacklan Mcintosh, 



10 South Carolina Cession. 

a majority of the Comnlii^sionel•^^ on the part of Georgia — signed an 
agreement and convention establishing the line as it now exists be- 
tween the two States, running along the Savannah River and its most 
northern branch, the Tugaloo, and the most northern branch of the 
Tugaloo, the Chatuga, to the point where it intersects the North Caro- 
lina line. This would have granted all our twelve-mile strip to Geor- 
gia, along with the other territory ceded by South Carolina to Georgia 
in that convention. It so happened, however, that the Legislature of 
South Carolina was at the same time in session. 

On March 8 of the same year, just one month and twenty daj'S be- 
fore the completion and signature of the convention at Beaufort, the 
South Carolina Legislature passed a bill conveying to the United States 
the territory bounded by the Mississippi River, the North Carolina line, 
and a line drawn along the crest of the mountains, which divide the 
waters of the East from the waters of the West from the point where 
these mountains intersect the North Carolina line to the head-waters of 
the most southern branch of Tugaloo River, and thence west to the Mis- 
sissippi River, thus mapping out our twelve-mile strip. The delegates of 
South Carolina were directed to make a deed conveying the same. These 
two apparently inconsistent acts of South Carolina both needed the con- 
firmation of Congress. They were accordingly presented to Congress on 
the same day, accompanied by the deed of cession, Aug. 9, 1787. The 
action of Congress bears marks of worldly wisdom. The cession to the 
United States was accei)ted on the same day. The motion to confirm 
the conventi(m of Beaufort was referred to a committee, who, as far as 
I can find, never reported. This report was perhaps prevented by the 
absorbing interest in the constitutional convention then in session, and 
which CO 1 pleted its labors in the following month by adopting the 
present constitution, and the Congress of the Confederation soon after 
passed out of existence, and with it the ninth article, under which the 
suit of South Carolina was instituted. 

I must here notice an error into which Hildreth has fallen. What- 
ever may be thought of the bias of his politics, or the justice of his re- 
flections, he is certainly reliable in points of fact, and his work might 
well be styled a Cyclopedia of United States History. He evidently 
wrote it seated by the journal of Congress, following in chronological 
order each event as it transpired. He thus brings to light many curi- 
ous and interesting details which the more rhetorical or philosophical 
historians neglect, I have relied nmch on his statements in the pres- 
ent sketch. He seems, however, to have fallen into an error in regard 
to the South Carolina cession, as proved by the extracts from the jour- 



South Carolina Cession. 11' 

nal of Congress, which I have followed in recounting the South Caro- 
lina suit and cession. He says : " The geography of this region was not 
yet well understood, and after this ample cession to the United States 
of all her remaining western territory, a cession which might as well 
have been spared, since the lines described by it included nothing." 

We have just seen that the cession to the United States was made 
before the action of the Beaufort Convention, that the two acts were 
reported to Congress on the same day, and that the Beaufort Convention 
was never confirmed by Congress. The lines described did, therefore,^ 
include something, and did convey a real title. 

Thus the twelve-mile strip became the territory of the United States, 
and intervened as a wedge between Georgia and North Carolina, and 
afforded for several years a suggestive invitation to cede their western 
lands. The example was followed by North Carolina in 1790, when, 
after her patience was exhausted by the attempt to establish the State 
of Frankland, she ceded her western lands to the United States. Ken- 
tucky anticipated the expected second cession of Virginia, and became 
a State in 1792, without undergoing the territorial apprenticeship. 

This left the full pressure of the demand for western cessions to fall 
on Georgia. This sturdy State resisted until 1802, when her unwilling 
cession, by no means a free gift, proved to be a shrewd bargain. She 
then ceded the Territory of Mississippi, nearly all of which was covered 
by Indian titles, and received in return that portion of the South Car- 
olina cession immediately north of her boundary, $1,250,000 in money 
from the proceeds of the sale of public lands, and what ultimately 
proved very costly to the United States, a guarantee for the extinction 
of all Indian claims in her present limits. The remaining portion of 
our twelve-mile strip, all of which, after the admission of Tennessee, 
was styled in legislation the territory of the United States south of the 
State of Tennessee, was, in 1804, added by Congress to Mississippi Ter- 
ritory, and now constitutes the northern portion of the States of Ala- 
bama and Mississippi. 



Northeri] Boundary of Tei^nessee, 

Read Before the Tennessee Historical Society, March 18, 1884. 



ri^HE dividing Hoe between Virginia and North Carolina, a portion 
-L of which line now constitutes the northern boundary of Tennes- 
see, was first conceived in the luiuds of Charles II. and his Council. 
Its history thus begins in 1665, when, without a "local habitation," it 
existed as an imaginary line having but one finite end, and purporting 
to bound unexplored countries. The confusion and disputes which at- 
tended the effort to locate and mark it by natural bounds, extended 
through a large portion of our colonial history, and reached far into 
our national life. Piece by piece it was extended and patched, follow- 
ing on in the wake of civilization in its westward march, until its final 
completion in 1859-60, when it Avas located and marked by the Joint 
Commission of Tennessee and Kentucky, and confirmed by legislation 
in both Htates. 

Our history is thus divided into two 2:>eriods. The first period ex- 
tends from the grant of Charles II. in 1665 to the Cession Act of North 
Carolina in 1790, when this line constituted the boundary between 
Virginia and North Carolina. The second period extends from the 
Cession Act of 1790 to the final completion of the line in 1860, during 
which time it constituted, until 1796, the northern boundary of the 
South-west Territory, and subsequently the northern boundary of Ten- 
nessee. 

Duriug the first period it was extended by three successive steps. 
First: In 1728, by a Joint Commission under the authority of King 
George II. and of the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, it was run 241 
miles from the coast to a point on. Peter's Creek. Second: In 1749, it 
was extended to a point on Steep Rock Creek, a distance of eighty-eight 
miles, by Commissioners of King George II. Third : In 1779-80 it was 
extended to the Cumberland Mountain by a Joint Commission of North 
Carolina and Virginia, and was continued to the Tennessee River by 
the Virginia Commissioners, and its termination marked on the Mis- 



Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 13 

sissippi. The line of the Virginia Commissioners, commonly known 
as the Walker's Line, was confirmed by two enactments of North Car- 
olina in 1789 and 1790, and by Virginia in 1791. 

In the days when European monarchs rewarded their favorites with 
grants of immense tracts of territory in the New World, they did their 
surveying at the Council-table, and used oceans and parallels of lati- 
tude for boundary lines. Thus, when James I., in 1606, gave the 
London Company that immense tract called Virginia, he bounds it by 
the thirty-eighth and thirty-fourth parallels of north latitude, by the 
Atlantic Ocean and the South Seas. He similarly bounds the territory 
of the Plymouth Company by the same oceans, and by the forty-fifth 
and forty-first parallels. The belt of three degrees between these 
grants he leaves open to either company which shall first occupy the 
territory. When, in 1609, the same king changed the charter of the 
London Company, he enlarged the limits of Virginia, and describes 
the boundaries as follows : " From the point of land, Cape or Point 
Comfort, all along the sea-coast to the northward two hundred miles, 
and from said Cape or Point Comfort all along the sea-coast to the 
southward two hundred miles, ... up into the land throughout from 
sea to sea." The territory thus granted to Virginia extended from Cape 
Fear to Sandy Hook, and included all of what is now North Carolina 
and Tennessee, and portions of what is now South Carolina, Georgia, 
Alabama, and Mississippi, as well as all of what is now Maryland, 
Delaware, and Ncav Jersey, and portions of what is now Pennsylvania 
and other Middle States. The grant to the Plymouth Company in 
1620 made the fortieth parallel their southern limit, and established 
this parallel of forty degrees as the northern boundary of Virginia. 
The subsequent dissolution of the London Compan^ by James I. did 
not change the territorial limits of Virginia, but only its proprietor- 
ship, converting it into a royal province. Charles II. attached but 
little sanctity to the rights of the colony, or the gift of his grand- 
father. On March 24th, 1662, he granted to some of his favorites, 
viz. : " Our right trusty and right well beloved cousin and Councillor, 
Edward, Earl of Clarendon, our High Chancellor of England; our 
right trusty and right intirely beloved cousin and Councillor, George, 
Duke of Albemarle," etc., ad nauseam, "all that province, . . . 
within 36° of north latitude," etc. On June 30th, 1665, he enlarged 
this grant, and named a line destined to become famous in our history 
and a familiar word to our people, the line of 36° 30'. Col. Byrd tells 
us how this second grant was brought about: "Sir William Berkeley, 
who was one of the grantees, and at that time Governor of Virginai, 



14 Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 

finding a territory of thirty-one miles in breadth between the inhabited 
part of Virginia and the above-mentioned boundary of Carolina, ad- 
vised the Lord Clarendon of it ; and his Lordship had interest enough 
with the king to obtain a second patent to include it." This was per- 
haps one cause of the unpopularity of Gov. Berkeley in Virginia. In 
this second grant Charles II. gives to the Lords Proprietors of Car- 
olina " all that j)rovince, territory, or tract of ground, . . . extending 
north and eastward as far as the Carahtuke River, or inlet, upon a 
streight westerly line to Wyonoke Creek, which lys within or about 
the degrees of thirty-six and thirty minutes northern latitude, and so 
west in a direct line as far as the South Seas; and south and westward 
as far as the degrees of twenty-nine inclusive, northern latitude, and so 
west in a direct line as far as the South Seas," etc. 

Thus this profligate monarch, ira])ortuned by greedy and unscrupu- 
lous courtiers, scarcely giving a thought to the consequences of his ac- 
tion, ignores alike the acts of his predecessors and the vested rights of 
his subjects, and bounds by an imaginary line a territory which he has 
no right to convey. Among any other people on the globe, the seeds 
thus sown, the conflict of title, and unlocated boundary would have 
borne in future years its legitimate fi-uit of strife and bloodshed. That 
*this fatal consequence was averted from our ancestors is due, in part, to 
the abundance of unsettled territory; but it is mainly due to the liberal 
spirit and fraternal feeling which animated them in the revolution, and 
to the community of interests aAvakened by the struggle. In May, 
177(), Virginia framed a bill of rights, and enacted a constitution. 
Section 21 of this instrument declares: "The territory contained with- 
in the charters erecting the colonies of Maryland, Pennsylvania, North 
and South Carolina is hereby ceded and confirmed to those States for- 
ever." Haywood remarks on this point : "Here was magnanimously 
cut off and surrendered all the territory which had been taken from 
Virginia to satisfy the grants to the Lords Proprietors." Haywood is 
just in calling this action magnanimous. While Virginia could not 
perhaps have maintained a successful claim to the possession of those 
territories to which her abstract prior title had so long lain dormant, 
and had ])een weakened, if not destroyed, by so many capricious grants 
from the same power by which it was created, yet her position offered 
strong temptations to pursue the time-sanctioned European policy, the 
policy which European statesmen consider sagacious, which has built 
up all the great powers of Europe at the expense of their neighbors, 
and which is pursued now, and ever has been pursued throughout the 
whole history of their diplomacy. That policy would have been to 



Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 15 

nurse her claims, to hold them as a perpetual thorn in the side of her 
sister States, to prevent the formation of the Union, to make herself 
the great central absorbing power, and gradually to encroach on the 
lesser States. Such a policy was favored by a portion of her politi- 
cians, and was feared by several of the smaller States, especially by 
Maryland. Had a monarch ruled the destinies of Virginia, such would 
have been the inevitable tendency of events. With a territory undis- 
puted from the fortieth parallel to 36° 30', except the little corner 
which included Maryland, Delaware, and portions of Pennsylvania 
and New Jersey; with actual possession joined to best title, and the 
right acquired by conquest from Great Britain, to all the unoccupied 
western lands up to the lakes ; with wealth, population, and resources 
then far superior to any of her sister States, the prospect was certainly 
alluring, had the ambition of Virginia aimed at empire. But a far 
different spirit animated her people. Fired with the love of liberty, 
and struggling for their own freedom from the grasp of Great Britain, 
no thought entered their minds of aggression against the brethren 
fighting by their sides. Impelled by this spirit of her people, she de- 
voted her efforts to bind the States in a fraternal compact, to remove 
all causes of jealousy, and to build up a great and permanent Federal 
Republic, she hastened to surrender all claims to the territory of her 
sister States, and to dismember herself of her own vast domains. In 
her great cession of the territory north-west of the Ohio — the greatest 
cession of territory in the history of the world ever voluntarily made 
by a powerful State able to defend it — she invited the other States to 
follow her example, and thus made possible the local governments and 
magical development of the West, and she averted the jealousy and^ 
possibly the anarchy and bloodshed that mightt have followed the as- 
sertion of her claims. As w^e see her thus voluntarily stripping herself 
of her territory until she shrinks up between the Alleghanies and the 
Atlantic, shall we view her with that kindly pity which we feel for the 
man whose good-natured weakness has permitted greatness and fortune 
to fall from his grasp? Does not her course rather reveal a broad 
wisdom which European statesmen have never been able to compre- 
hend, and a philanthropy which looked to the good of mankind and 
not to the grasping of power, or the extension of State lines? Wheth- 
er we consider her magnanimous or weak, we cannot refuse the praise 
which poets and historians may bestow with kindling warmth but 
which the world echoes with faint applause: 

Less great in what thou art 

Than in that thou has. forborne to be. 



16 Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 

But whatever may be our reflections on the course of Virginia, it is 
at least certain that her action in 1776 forever quieted all questions of 
conflict of title to the territory of North Carolina. It now remained 
to complete the location of this imaginary line — this line which, though 
it failed to bring on the conflict of title and territory which the careless 
and selfish kings of England had bequeathed as a legacy to America, 
was yet destined to bear some of its bitter fruit, and to become famous 
in our history in another and more recent struggle, the contest for the 
limitation of slavery west of the Mississippi. 

The colonial disputes about the location of the line 36° 30' were not 
between the people of the two colonies, but between the Crown and the 
Lords Proprietors, Virginia being then a royal province and Carolina a 
proprietary government. The first dispute occurred in 1710. The re- 
spective commissioners met, and could not agree upon the starting-point 
by a difference of about fifteen miles. They separated without doing any 
thing. The Royal Commissioners made a report to Queen Anne, bringing 
serious charges against the Commissioners of the Lords Proprietors of 
Carolina. On March 1, 1710, an order of Council was issued, from which 
I quote the following : " That The Connnissioners of Carolina are both of 
them Persons engag'd in Interest to obstruct the settling of the Bounda- 
rys ; for one of them has been for several years Surveyor General of Caro- 
lina, and has acquired great Profit to himself by surveying Lands within 
the controverted Bounds, and has taken up several tracts of land in his 
own Name. The other of them is at this time Surveyor General, and 
hath the same prospect of advantage by making future surveys within 
the said bounds." The order concludes: "Her Majesty, in Council, is 
pleased to order, as it is hereby ordered, the Rt. Houble the Lords Com- 
missioners for Trade and Plantations Do signifye her Majesty's pleasure 
herein to her Majesty's Governor, or Commander-in-chief of Virginia 
for the time being, and to all persons to whom it may belong, as is pro- 
posed by their Lordships in said Representation, and the Rt. Honble 
the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, are to do what on their part does 
appertain." Col. Byrd, the Virginia Commissioner in 1728, defends 
the Carolina Commissioners against the charges above quoted. In 
obedience to this order, a conference was held between the respective 
Governors, Chas. Eden and Alexander Spottswood, and an agreement 
was signed " That from the mouth of Corotuck River, or Inlet, and set- 
ting the compass on the north Shoar thereof, a due West line be run, 
and fairly marked," etc. This agreement bears no date, and was for- 
warded to King George I. for his approval. "At the Court of St. 
James's, the 28th day of March, 1727. Present, the King's Most Ex- 



Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 17 

cellent Majesty in Council His Majesty is hereupon pleas'd 

with the advice of his Privy Council to approve the said Proposals, 
.... and to order, as it is hereby ordered, that the Governor, or 
Commander-in-chief, of our Colony of Virginia do settle the said 
Bouudarys, in conjunction with the Governor of North Carolina, 
agreeable to said Proposals." In accordance with this order, the 
Royal Commission was issued: "George II., by the Grace of God, of 
Great Britain, France, aud Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, to 
our well -beloved* William Byrd, Richard Fitz William, and William 
Dandridge, Esqrs, members of our Council of the Colony and Domin- 
ion of Virginia, Greeting: Whereas our late Royal Father of Blessed 
Memory," etc. This commission is dated Dec. 14th, 1727, "in the first 
Year of our Reign." The Carolina Commission runs in the name of 
the Lords Proprietors. " Sir Richard Everard, Baronet, Governor, 
Captain General, and Commander-in-chief of the said Province: To 
Christopher Gale, Esqr, Chief Justice, John Lovick, Esqr, Secretary, 
Edward Mosely, Esqr, Surveyor General, and William Little, Esqr, 
Attorney General, Greeting: .... I, therefore, reposing especial 
trust and confidence in you, .... to be Commissioners on the part 
of the true and absolute Lords Proprietors." It is dated February 21st, 
1728. The Commissioners met March 6th, 1728, and after some dis- 
putes, placed a cedar post on the north shore of Currituck Inlet, as 
their beginning point in latitude 36° 31', and from that point ran a 
due west course, as they su})posed, allowing 3° west for the variation. 
They passed through the Dismal Swamp, and gained, as Col. Byrd 
expresses it, "immortal reputation by being the first of mankind that 
ever ventured through the great Dismal." At Buzzard Creek, about 
169 miles from the coast, the Carolina Commissioners abandoned the 
work on Oct. 5, 1728. Col. Byrd and Mr. Dandridge continued the 
line seventy-two miles farther, to a point on Peter's Creek, a tributary 
of Dan River, near the Sauratowns, 241 miles and 30 poles from the 
coast, marking the termination on a red oak Oct. 26, 1728. A com- 
plete account of this line was afterward given by Col. Byrd in a de- 
lightful work entitled " The History of the Dividing Line." Col. Byrd 
was a courtier and wit of the first order. Even Dickens would not criti- 
cise us for calling him a " remarkable man." He was the most popular and 
influential man of his day in Virginia. In his elegant country-seat of 
Westover, on James River, he was the most hospitable of cavaliers and 
the most genial of companions. Sparkling all over with wit, his His- 
tory of the Dividing Line is perhaps the most entertaining book ever 
written on so dry a subject. I have alluded to his characteristics, be- 
2 



18 Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 

cause they jjroducod an important effect on the location of the line o 
which he was the liistorian and the father. With his cheerful and gen- 
erous nature, he combined a hot temper and a lofty pride. He fully 
expected all the people along the border to be clamorous for the honor 
of belonging to Virginia. He was disgusted to find that they all de- 
sired to fall on the Carolina side of the line. After spurting out his 
indignation, true to his generous nature, he favored their wishes as far 
as his iastructions would permit, and consented to the location of the 
line about a mile north of 36° 30'. In his history, hdwever, he cannot 
help firing a few parting shots, of which the following will serve as a 
specimen : " We constantly found the Borderers laid it to heart if their 
land was taken into Virginia. They chose much rather to belong to 
Carolina, where they pay no tribute to God or Ci3esar." Of the action 
of the Carolina Commissioners in abandoning the work on Oct. 5, I 
give Col. Byrd's opinion in his own language : " We lay still the next 
day, being Sunday. The Gentlemen of Carolina assisted not at our 
Public Devotions, because they were taken up all the morning in mak- 
ing a formidable protest against our proceeding on the line without 
them In the afternoon Mr. Fitz William, one of the Com- 
missioners from Virginia, acquainted his colleagues it was his opinion 
that by his Majesty's Order they could not proceed farther on the line 
but in conjunction with the Commissioners of Carolina, for which rea- 
son he intended to retire the next morning with those gentlemen. This 
lookt a little odd in our Brother Commissioner, tho' in justice to him, 
as well as our Carolina Friends, they stuck to us as long as our good 
Liquor lasted, and were so kind as to drink our good journey to the 

Mountains in the last bottle we had left This Gentleman 

had a stil stronger reason for hurrying back to Williamsburg, which 
was that neither the General Court might lose an able judge nor him- 
self a double salary, tho' he did but half the work, in which, however, 
he had the misfortune to miscarry when it came to be fairly considered." 
Col. Byrd, with the remainder of his party, as we have seen, completed 
the line to Peter's Creek, as he expresses it, "within the shadow of the 
Chariky Mountains, where we set up our pillars like Hercules, and re- 
turned home." He closes his pleasant narrative as follows: "Nor can 
we by any means reproach ourselves of having put the Crown to any 
exhorbitant expense in this difficult affair, the whole charge from be- 
ginning to end amounting to no more than £1,000. But let no one 
concerned in this painful Expedition complain of the scantiness of his 
pay so long as His Majesty has been graciously pleased to add to our 
Reward the Honour of his Royal approbation, and to declare, not- 



Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 19 

withstanding the Desertion of the Carolina Commissioners, that the line 
by us run shall hereafter stand as the true Boundary betwixt the Gov- 
ernments of Virginia and North Carolina." 

The second step in the location of this line was taken in 1749, when 
it was continued from Peter's Creek to a point on Steep Rock Creek, a 
distance of eighty-eight miles, being in all 329 miles from the coast. 
There is no incident of special interest in this extension. It may, how- 
ever, be noted that one of the Virginia Commissioners was Peter Jeffer- 
son, the father of Thomas Jefferson. His colleague was Joshua Fry, 
Professor of Mathematics in William and Mary College. The Carolina 
Commissioners were Daniel Weldon and William Churton. In one re- 
spect this Commission deserves notice. Of the four joint Commissions 
of North Carolina and Virginia, this was the only one which engaged 
in no disputes, and the only one from which the Carolina Commission- 
ers failed to protest and withdraw. North Carolina was now, like Vir- 
ginia, a Royal Province. The Commissioners of both provinces held 
under the same authority, the King. This may account for their har- 
mony. 

No other step was taken in the location of the boundary until after 
the beginning of the Revolution. We now find commissions worded in 
a different style, and for the first time look for their creation in legisla- 
tive enactments. In 1779 we come to the third step. Urged by press- 
ing demands from their western settlers, the legislatures of the two 
States found time in the midst of the Revolutionary struggle to appoint 
a joint Commission to extend their boundary. The Commissioners, Col. 
Henderson and William B. Smith, on the part of North Carolina, and 
Thomas Walker and Daniel Smith on the part of Virginia, met in 
September, 1779. They failed to find the point at which Fry and Jef- 
ferson and Weldon and Charton ended their line on Steep Rock Creek. 
On September 6th memoranda of agreement were entered on the books of 
both parties to the effect "that the point of observation was in north 
latitude 36° 31' 25", and in west longitude 81° 12'." They ran due 
south one mile to a point supposed to be in latitude 36° 30', " to the sat- 
isfaction of all." From this point they ran a line, which they supposed 
to be due west, about forty-five miles to Carter's Valley. Here a disa- 
greement occurred, and the two Commissions separated, running paral- 
lel lines about two miles apart, the line of the Carolina Commissioners, 
generally known as Henderson's Line, being north of the line of the 
Virginia Commissioners, commonly called Walker's Line. The Caro- 
lina Commissioners continued their line as far as Cumberland Mount- 
ain. At this point they abandoned the work, after sending a letter of 



20 Northern Boundary oj Tennessee. 

protest against Walker's Line. The Virginia Commissioners continued 
to Tennessee River, leaving an unsurveyed gap from Deer Fork to the first 
or east crossing ofCumbsrIand River, a distance which they estimated 
to be 109 miles. Subsequent surveys place this distance at ninety seven 
miles. The total distance of Walker's Line, as given in the report of 
the Virginia Commissioners, is: " From Steep Rock Creek to Deer Fork 
123 J miles; unsurveyed gap (estimated), 109 miles; from first or east 
Cumberland crossing, to second or west Cumberland cros:?ing, 131 
miles; thence to Tennessee River 9} miles; making a total of 373 
miles. This added to Fry and Jefferson's Line, 88 miles, and Byrd's 
line, 241 miles, makes the total length of the boundary thus far ex- 
tended from the coast to the Tennessee River, 702 miles. The Com- 
missioners, although not authorized to extend the line beyond Ten- 
nessee River, proceeded to mark its termination on the Mississippi, 
but did not survey the intervening distance. In consequence of the 
failure to make due allowance for the variation of the needle. Walker's 
Line deflected continuously to the north. Col. Byrd's error of allow- 
ing too great a variation contributed to the same result, the two lines 
being on opposite sides of the line of no variation. Either on account 
of the imperfection of their astronomical instruments, or from a failure 
to test their work by a sufficient number of astronomical observations, 
the Commissioners seemed not to detect, or at least did not correct, this 
constant northward deflection. Walker's Line first touched Tennessee 
near latitude 36° 34', and reached Tennessee River near latitude 36° 
40', more than twelve miles too far north in a direct line, or about sev- 
enteen miles by way of the river. This fact has been established by 
subsequent surveys with more accurate instruments. Henderson's Line, 
running two miles north of Walker's Line, was of course still further 
wrong. In consequence of the disagreement of the Commissioners, no 
immediate action was taken by the two States. In 1789 a committee 
of the North Carolina Legislature, of which Gen. Thomas Person was 
chairman, made a report, recommending the adoption of Walker's Line. 
This report was " concurred with" by both houses. At the same session 
of the Legislature the act was passed ceding the Western Territory, which 
is now Tennessee, to the United States. Under the law of North Car- 
olina all acts related to the first day of the session. Thus the resolution 
adopting Walker's Line and the Cession Act bore even date. The deed 
executed to Congress by the Senators of North Carolina in pursuance 
of the Cession Act was dated Feb. 25, 1790, and the deed was accepted 
by Congress April 2, 1790. On Nov. 2, 1790, Gen. Person, again chair- 
man of the Carolina Committee on Boundaries, in consequence of doubts 



Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 21 

as to the formality and sufficiency of the previous action of the Caro- 
lina Legislature, made a second report, recommending as follows : " That 
the boundary line between the States of North Carolina and Virginia 
be confirmed agreeable to a report of a committee, concurred with by 
both houses last session of assembly, and that a law be passed confirm- 
ing the line commonly called Walker's Line as the boundary between 
the States of N. Carolina and Virginia, and reserving the rights of the 
oldest patents, grants, or entries made in either of the States." On 
Dec. 11, 1790, this report was "read and concurred with" by both 
houses. It will be observed that in the first report, made in 1789, 
which was " concurred with " and made the basis of the second report, 
and thus for the second time "concurred with," the following fact is 
distinctly set forth. I quote the language: "Mr. Walker and the other 
Commissioners from Virginia extended the line to Tennessee River, and 
marked its termination on the Mississippi from observations, leaving the 
line from the Tennessee to that place unsurveyed." The action thus 
adopting Walker's Line as clearly extended it to the Mississippi as if 
posts had been placed every five miles between. This action was sat- 
isfactory to Virginia, and on Dec. 7, 1791, Walker's Line was confirmed 
by the Legislature of Virginia. Thus the boundary was regarded by 
both States as finally settled. 

This brings us to the second period of our history, which opens with 
a curious complication. In 1792, William Blount, Territorial Governor 
of Tennessee, insisted that the first resolution of the Carolina Legisla- 
ture in 1789 was not a legal confirmation of Walker's Line; and that 
the second resolution of 1790, passed many months after the acceptance 
of the Cession by Congress, was invalid as to the United States, of which 
Tennessee was then a territory. He further urged that North Caro- 
lina had for ten years before the Cession exercised jurisdiction to Hen- 
derson's Line, and announced his intention of maintaining the same. 
A correspondence ensued between him and Governor Lee, of Virginia, 
which resulted in a proclamation from Governor Blount asserting juris- 
diction to Henderson's Line, and a counter proclamation from Governor V 
Lee asserting jurisdiction to Walker's Line. Matters remained in this ^ 
confused and somewhat hostile shape until 1801, when the two States 
appointed a joint Commission to determine the true boundary. On 
Dec. 18, 1802, Joseph Martin, Creed Taylor, and Peter Johnson, on 
the part of Virginia, and John Sevier, George Rutledge, and Moses 
Fisk, on the part of Tennessee, met at Cumberland Gap. Failing to 
"unite in the result of their astronomical observations," they entered 
into a compromise, and unanimously agreed to run the boundary par- 



\ 



22 Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 

allel to the two lines in dispute and midway between them, about one 
mile from each. The surveyors, Brice Martin and Nathan B. Mark- 
hind, surveyed this line, and marked it with live chops in the shape of 
a diamond. In 1803 the acts of the Commissioners were confirmed by 
appropriate legislation in both States. The boundary between Virginia 
and Tennessee was thus fiually established. Although subsequent ne- 
gotiations have occurred, no change has been made. Ou Marcli 1, 1858, 
Tennessee passed enactments, and on March 18, 1858, Virginia passed 
similar enactments, creating a joint Commission to re-mark, by perma- 
nent landmarks, the line as agreed on in 1803. Samuel Milligan and 
George R. McClellan, Commissioners for Tennessee, and Leonid as 
Baugh and James C. Black, Commissioners for Virginia, re-marked 
this line in 1859. Their acts were rejected by Virginia on March 9, 
18()0, and were never confirmed by Tennessee. In consequence of the 
war, the proposition of Virginia in 1860 to appoint another Commis- 
sion was not acted on by Tennessee. In 1870 Virginia proposed a re- 
adjustment of her boundaries with Maryland, North Carolina, and 
Tennessee, and appointed a Commission consisting of Henry A. Wise, 
William Watts, and D. C. De Jarnette. The proposal of Tennessee 
was transmitted to the Legislature by Governor Senter in his message 
of Dec. 13, 1870, inclosing a communication from Governor Gilbert 
C. Walker of Virginia, together with the Virginia enactment. Vir- 
ginia proposed to refer the line for reiidjustment to a joint Commission 
of the two States, assisted by a corps of skillful engineers in the serv- 
ice of the United States. A resolution was passed in the Tennessee 
Senate to authorize the appointment of three Commissioners, but failed 
to pass the House. In the following year Governor John C. Brown called 
the attention of the Legislature to the subject. A joint committee of 
the two houses was appointed, consisting of Henry R. Gibson, F. W. 
Earnest, Wm. Greene, V. C. Allen, J. H. Cross, W. S. McGaughey, 
L. M. Wester, and W. H. Anderson. This committee gave the sub- 
ject a thorough investigation. Their report, although it contains an 
error in argument, is an excellent history of this yrnvt of the line, and 
a State pa])er of marked ability. After reviewing the whole (juestion, 
they recommended a joint resolution, which was adopted March 28, 
1872. I quote the following portion : " That the Governor of this State 
be instructed to inform the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia 
that Tennessee declines to do any act, or to entertain any negotiation, 
looking to a reopening of the question of boundary between the two 
States, but regards said boundary as fixed and established bey(md dis- 
pute and forever." This act of Tennessee was certainly right, and due 



Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 23 

to her citizens. The language above quoted is firm, dignified, and suf- 
ficient. The same cannot be said for the following clause of her reso- 
lution: "That any move on our part tending to unsettle and disestab- 
lish said boundary, or even awaken a doubt as to its perfect validity 
and inviolable uualterability, is mischievous and xoanton, and not only 
uncalled for, but to be utterly discountenanced and condemned." This 
language is not only sophomoric, but it contains a plainly implied and 
sharp rebuke, which the circumstances connected with the history of this 
line rendered it peculiarly ungracious in Tennessee to administer. In 
fact, both States abated somewhat of their dignity — Virginia in request- 
ing the reopening of a question settled by her own act in 1803, and ac- 
quiesced in for sixty-seven years; Tennessee, in using uuamiable lan- 
guage and rebuking her older sister. This negotiation, then, produced 
no effect. Tennessee refused to reopen the matter, and held on to her 
acquisition. The compromise of 1803 may, therefore, be regarded, as 
the final settlement. 

After this final adjustment of her boundary Avith Virginia in 1803, 
Tennessee found an unexpected and troublesome controversy on her 
hands, growing out of the same questions. Kentucky had discovered 
that Walker's Line was several miles north of 36° 30'. In the repu- 
diation of the Carolina and Virginia compact by Tennessee, Kentucky 
saw her opportunity. Her argument now came with great force : " Since 
by your own showing the confirmation of Walker's Line by Virginia 
and North Carolina is invalid as to us, then we have no dividing line 
except the old imaginary line of 36° 30'. Let us move down south, 
and locate it." This threat was the more ominous when Kentucky re- 
fused to make any convention on the basis of Walker's Line, though 
repeatedly urged by Tennessee enactments in 1803, 1815, and 1817. 
In 1813, by an act approved Feb. 13, she gives the following intima- 
tion: " Whereas Tennessee proposes to depart from the true line of sep- 
aration .... to be ascertained by correct and scientific observa- 
tion," etc., the Governor is directed to inform the Governor of Ten- 
nessee "that the disagreeable necessity is imposed upon Kentucky 
of having the long-contested question finally settled by the means 
pointed out by the Constitution of the United States." 

Her act of Feb. 10, 1816, offers a compromise, provided the same is 
accepted by Tennessee at the next session of her Legislature. She offers 
to adopt Walker's Line from " Obed's alias Aba's River to the Tennes- 
see River," the remaining portions of the line, both east and west, to 
be on latitude 36° 30', this line to be located by a joint Commission. 
This offer proposed to place about 180 miles, a little over half the total 



24 Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 

boundary, on latitude 36° 30'. The action of the Tennessee Legisla- 
ture in 1817, failing to accept this compromise, and again proposing 
a joint Commission on the basis of Walker's Line, seemed to irritate 
her neighbor. Kentucky replied by the following spicy enactment of 
January 30, 1818: "That all laws heretofore enacted by the General 
Assembly of this Comniouwealth relative to the boundary line of this 
State and the State of Tennessee shall be, and the same are hereby, 

repealed Be it further enacted that the southern boundary 

line shall be and remain on a line running west from the top of Cum- 
berland Mountain to the Mississippi River in 36° 30' north latitude, 
any thing in any former law passed by this State to the contrary not- 
withstanding." In the following year, 1819, she sent her surveyors, 
Alexander and Munsell, to run and mark a Hue on 36° 30' between 
the Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers, and declared this to be the true 
boundary. This line struck Tennessee River about seventeen miles 
south of Walker's Line by way of the river, and if continued would 
have passed south of the town of Clarksville. Tennessee now required 
the utmost skill of her diplomatists to extricate her from the false po- 
sition of claiming jurisdiction by virtue of a line, the validity of which 
she had solemnly repudiated. Her authorities were thoroughly alarmed. 
Kentucky had now taken an aggressive step, and seemed ready to fol- 
low it up by vigorous measures. Tennessee could no longer rest quiet 
in possession, and rely on the inertia of republican institutions. Some 
plea must be found of "avoidance" without "confession." This plea 
Governor Joseph IMcMinn supplies in his message of Oct. 6, 1819. It 
was the only argunient which Tennessee had left, but it was an argu- 
ment logical and potent in America — "the ^vishes of the people." He 
says: "The citizens of both States, who live in the neighborhood of 
Walker's Line, seem to be perfectly satisfied with that boundary, and 

would be opposed to any alteration There is no proper 

alternative left to the authorities of the two States, if they consult the 
interests of their citizens, but to establish Walker's Line as far as the 
eastern bank of Tennessee River." He points to the necessity of a 
compromise: "I submit to your consideration the necessity of employ- 
ing some mathematician of known skill, .... to ascertain the lat- 
itude of 36° 30' on the western bank of Tennessee River. ... If 
the line recently run by the State of Kentucky between the rivers 
Tennessee and Mississippi should be in the latitude called for by the 
charter of this State, it must and ought in justice to stand." This com- 
promise losing more in the west than had been gained in the east, need 
never have been offered had not Tennessee been estopped from plead- 



StdtoTt j/c«gb cr^ /. 




6f^<aB» 



TENNESSEE. 



26 Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 

ing the Virginia and Carolina compact confirming Walker's Line. It 
will be remembered that this confirmation extended to the termination 
marked on the Mississippi. 

Since legislative invituticms and enactments had failed to draw a 
settlement from Kentucky, the Legislature of Tennessee determined 
to send Commissioners to visit the Kentucky Legislature. For this 
delicate task they selected, by joint ballot, Felix Grundy and William 
L. Brown, and clothed them with absolute powers to conclude a treaty. 
The ability and address of Judge Grundy and his colleague were never 
more needed and never more conspicuously shown. Kentucky was in 
earnest in her claim to this whole strip of territory. She saw that a 
joint Commission could not advance her claims, and her Legislature 
was in no compromising mood. It is due to the persuasive influence and 
diplomatic skill of Judge Grundy and his colleague that Kentucky 
was finally induced to appoint a Commission. Her Commissioners 
were two of her ablest men, John J. Crittenden and Robert Trimble, 
and her argument as to abstract title was unanswerable. Yet, handi- 
capped and estopped as they were, the Tennessee Commissioners suc- 
cessfully urged "actual possession," "the wishes of the people," and 
the many annoyances and hardships which would result from a change^ 
and offered as a liberal compromise to let all lines stand as they were, 
acknowledging Alexander and Munsell's Line. Finally the sober sec- 
ond thought of Kentucky yielded her abstract claims to the general 
good, and bowed to the will of the people. A compromise was effected 
Feb. 2, 1820, which is so well known that I need not rehearse it. The 
treaty contained ten articles. The boundary was to be Walker's Line 
to the Tennessee River; thence up and with said river to Alexander 
and Munsell's Line; thence with said line to the ]\Iississippi ; this line 
to be hereafter marked when demanded by either State ; legislation to 
be enacted with regard to land-titles, in accordance with certain stip- 
ulations; the treaty to be valid, if ratified by the Legislature of Ken- 
tucky at the session then pending. This ratification was duly given. 
Pending this negotiation, however, on Nov. 27, 1819, the Legislature 
of Tennessee, either fearful of the result or rdstive about the matter, 
passed an act directing the Governor, in case of the failure of the Com- 
missioners to make a treaty with Kentucky, to appoint surveyors, and 
have a line run and marked from the termination of AValker's Line on 
Tennessee River to the point marked by Walker in 1780 on the east 
bank of the Mississippi. This act was rendered inoperative by the con- 
clusion of the treaty. Haywood remarks : "As is the fate of every treaty, 
good or bad, .... this treaty, as soon as it saw the light, was en- 



Jw-eT": 



= S. 







28 Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 

countered by an exceedingly animated opposition. It, however, finally 
triumphed ; the Legislature recognized its validity and provided for its 
execution." The line thus agreed on became the established boundary 
from the date of its confirmation by Kentucky in 1820. Many incon- 
veniences, however, continued to result from the loss of some of the land- 
marks of Walker's Line and the uncertainty with regard to others, and 
the unsurvcyed gap left by Dr. Walker between Deer Fork and Cum- 
berland River. Although the main points were finally settled, trouble- 
some minor questions were raised, which required for their adjustment 
several negotiations and joint commissions between the two States. The 
limits of this paper will not permit a history of the legislation in ref- 
erence to the adjustment of laud claims, although it is intimately con- 
nected with the history of the boundary. 

In 1821 a joint Commission, consisting of Wm. Steele, on the part 
of Kentucky, and Absalom Loouey, on the part of Tennessee, surveyed 
and marked the gap in AValker's Line, extending their survey from the 
east crossing of Cumberland River to Cumberland Gap. Their acts 
were confirmed by Tennessee Nov. 13, 1821, and by Kentucky Nov. 
22, of the same year. A line was also run by Mr. Henderson in 1821 
between the Tennessee and Mississippi rivei'S, coinciding .very nearly 
with Alexander and Munsell's Line. 

On Sept. 19, 1831, the message of Governor Carroll announced to 
the Legislature of Tennessee that in accordance with their act of the 
previous session, he had appointed James Bright Commissioner for 
Tennessee; that Mr. Bright, in conjunction with Dr. Munsell, the 
Commissioner for Kentucky, had run and marked Walker's Line 
along the southern borders of Allen, Simpson, and Trigg counties. 
He recommends the confirmation of their acts. This line is shown, in 
part, in Map No. 8, accompanying this paper. It continues Walker's 
Line straight from the point near the west crossing of Cumberland 
River to the Tennessee. It would, if adopted, have thrown into Ken- 
tucky a strip of land which is now a portion of Tennessee. 

In 1845 Governor James C. Jones alludes in his message to difficul- 
ties arising with Kentucky in relation to the boundary line; and an- 
nounces that in accordance with the act of the previous session he had 
appointed C. W. Nance and William P. McLain as Commissioners on 
the part of Tennessee. These Commissioners in Oct., 1845, met the 
Commissioners of Kentucky, Messrs. Wilson and Duncan, and marked 
a line along the borders of Trigg and Christian counties, and along 
that portion of the border of Fulton county west of Reel-foot Lake. 
A portion of their line is shown in Map No. 8. These different lines, 



Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 29 

however, patching up portions of the boundary, were all readjusted in 
1859. 

As disputes continued to arise, both States saw the necessity of a 
final and permanent adjustment and marking of their common bound- 
ary throughout its whole extent. The necessary enactments were 
passed by both States in 1858 creating a joint Commission, who were 
required to place stone posts on the line, five miles apart, to use other 
permanent landmarks, to make duplicate written reports, to be filed 
in the archives of the respective States, accompanied by topographical 
maps, and such geographical information as they should be able to col- 
lect. 

In 1859 this joint Commission, consisting of Benjamin Peeples and 
O. R. Watkins, Commissioners; O. H. P. Bennett, Engineer; J. Traf- 
ton, L. Burnett, AssistJlnt Engineers; and J. M. Nicholson, Surveyor, 
on the part of Tennessee: Austin P. Cox and C. M. Briggs, Commis- 
sioners; J. Pillsburg, Engineer; G. Trafton, G. Stealey, and A. Heus- 
ley, Assistant Engineers, on the part of Kentucky, met at a place which 
they named Compromise, on the Mississippi River. Having improved 
instruments and superior facilities, they made an accurate and satis- 
factory survey, placing the stone posts as required, and marking the 
line on permanent trees with four chops fore and aft. They also cleared 
a distance of five feet on each side of the line, and marked permanent 
trees facing the line with the initial letters of their respective States, 
"K."and"T." 

From Compromise, latitude 36° 29' 55.7", they followed very nearly 
along Alexander and Munsell's Line to its termination on the Tennes- 
see in latitude 36° 29' 54". This line frequently crosses the parallel 
36° 30', very nearly coinciding with it. Thence they ran down the 
Tennessee to Walker's Line, the latitude of which they failed to mark, 
but which is not far from 36° 40' 45" at the point where it touches the 
Tennessee River. Thence they followed Walker's Line to the south- 
east corner of Kentucky, in latitude 36° 34' 53.48". Thence they ran 
to the end of their line, the south-west corner of Virginia, in latitude 
86° 36' 0.92". Their report — made in duplicate to Governor Isham G. 
Harris, of Tennessee, and Governor Magoffin, of Kentucky, on Nov. 11, 
1859 — discusses the questions connected with the running of the various 
lines in 1821 , 1830, and 1845, and gives twenty-seven section-maps tracing 
these lines. I present to the Society accurate copies of three of these 
maps, taken from the originals on tracing-cloth, and prepared for me 
by Engineer E. F. Batte. These will serve to show the salient points 
of these lines. The Commissioners state that they found no landmarks 



so Northern Boundary of Tennessee. 

•of Walker's Line west of the first or eastern crossing of Cumberland 
River, and they do not believe that their predecessors ever found any. 
They therefore ran the line in accordance with the language of the stat- 
ute creating their powers, which followed the phraseology of the con- 
vention of 1820: "Walker's Line, as the same is reputed, understood, 
and acted upon by the two States, their respective authorities and cit- 
izens." This survey cost Tennessee $25,357, and cost Kentucky $22,- 
630.07. The stone posts cost $1,265. The acts of the Commissioners 
were confirmed by Kentucky on Feb. 28, 1860, and by Tennessee on 
March 21, 1860. 

Thus after a controversy of sixty-eight years, extending from 1792 
to 1860, was finally established the title of Tennessee to the strip of 
territory north of 36° 30'. This strip extends from White Top Mount- 
ain to Tennessee River, a distance of about 355 miles. The portion 
adjoining Virginia is about 110 miles long and averages about 7 miles 
wide. The portion adjoining Kentucky is about 245 miles long, and 
about 51 miles wide at its eastern extremity, gradually increasing in width 
toward the west till it reaches the Tennessee River about 122 miles wide. 
For this acquisition Tennessee is indebted, in the first place, to the fail- 
ure of the Virginia and Carolina Commissioners to make due allowance 
for the variation of the needle, thus causing their lines to swerve con- 
tinuously to the north; in the second place, to the fidelity and ability 
of her public servants ; and finally, to the preference of the people along 
the border to live within her jurisdiction, and to the conservatism and 
liberal spirit of her sister States, which led them to respect the wishes 
of the people. 

Her boundary lines now skirt her borders, visible in permanent land- 
marks, and appear on her statute-books described by natural bounds. 
Yet, strange to say, her Constitution of 1870 still adheres to the old im- 
aginary lines, and describes her northern boundary as 36° 30', copying 
the language of the Cession Act, and of the State Constitutions adopted 
prior to the final adjustment and location of the boundaries. This 
loose description is guarded by the following saving clause: "Provided 
that the limits and jurisdiction of this State shall extend to any other 
land and territory now actjuired by compact or agreement with other 
States, or otherwise, although such land and territory are not included 
within the boundaries hereinbefore designated." This ingenuous sav- 
ing clause was truly necessary ; but as a description it is certainly more 
elastic than instructive. The distinguished statesmen who constituted 
the Committee on the Bill of Rights, and framed this description, may 
Jiave been induced by a desire of preserving the time-honored phrase- 



fdtpSi^aviMp^tn^* Vi7 



KKXITCraxv* 



Cw-^JS^tTAO 







A«rrv<Mr««n>M sMb 






32 Northern Boundary oj Tennessee. 

ology which a long-continued reverence for former Constitutions had 
rendered tuneful to their ears. Possibly other portions of constitutional 
frame-work, more congenial to the legislator, may have so occupied their 
time as to prevent a reference to the statutes, or a visit to the archives. 
It may have been that this method of description was adopted for rea- 
sons of political wisdom, apparent to the constitutional lawyer, but which 
fail to reveal themselves to the historian. 



In preparing the " History of the Northern Boundary of Tennessee," 
I have consulted the following authorities: 

Byrd's History of the Dividing Line. 

Thomas Jefferson's Works. 

Cooke's History of Virginia. 

Wheeler's History of North Carolina. 

Ramsay's History of South Carolina. 

Marshall's History of Kentucky. 

Haywood's History of Tennessee. 

Barasey's Annals of Tennessee. 

Rid path's History of the United States. 

Charters and Constitutions of the United States, by Ben Perley 
Poore. 

Statutes, Journals, Revisals, etc., of Virginia, North Carolina, Ten- 
nessee, and Kentucky. 

The Manuscript Report of the Joint Commission of Tennessee and 
Kentucky, submitted to Governor Isham G. Harris, Nov. 11, 1859, 
with accompanying maps on file in the office of the Secretary of State 
of Tennessee. 



570 3- 1^ 




* ^"^ -^^ o^J^^/ >- V 






'^- 




-a? -^ 



v^''^. 







<J>- ' N 












'0^ 















• V^' •^" ^n/ •''^'- * 








